about time this was introduced, please sign. HM Government issue e-petition for a mandatory noise complaint waiver - Britcar
I've signed it. And I don't even live in the country. But it has my every sympathy. After all, there are no racetracks in Switzerland at all which is ludicrously poor.
The petition is not raised by any government department. Its raised by an individual and aimed at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I would be interested to know if any of these petitions has actually changed government policy. I would make a fairly secure bet that the answer is NO!
As usual with this kind of petition, this one is well-meaning but vague, woolly, badly drafted, and full of errors. It is not specific as to exactly what it wants, nor how its ends would be achieved. Whoever initiated it couldn't be bothered to get it straight before posting it. So it will sink without trace, obviously.
Sure it is Pete, but the intention is quite clear and as such it could be knocked into shape by one of your mates given sufficient support.
Direct approach - move near a race track and moan and you will be deafened with a 9mm round from a M9 Beretta being discharged near you ear. Shortly after that it is proposed that said round will enter your skull and initiate brain death.
Buy a house near a racetrack and sign a waiver so you can't complain about the noise. Well in the first place said buyer of house should have done their homework, if you don't like noise don't buya house near a race track. Will they be raising the same type of petition for near football stadiums, railway lines and any other noise instigated environment.
No, the intention is not at all clear; in fact it is really obscure. The time to knock a petition into shape is before people are asked to sign up to it. Nobody can possibly amend a petition after it has collected signatures - unless each signatory was asked to consent.
If you buy a house near an existing circuit then you shouldn't complain about the existing noise ? Granted it isn't in legalese but the intention sound clear enough to me. The petition describes the principle which then forms the basis upon which the law is drafted ?
The e-petitions are juts a sop to make you believe politicians listen to what their electorate are saying. These sort of things make no impact on policy.
I posted something similar few months ago, pete's argument then was the same as today. He was right then as he is today. The proof is the fact it has been raised as a petition again. Sad but true.
As a petition signer I have received the following email from the Gov't: (I give it to you here in the same format I received it: "The e-petition 'introduce mandatory noise complaint waiver for anyone who buys or rents a property close to motorsport venue' signed by you recently reached 37,927 signatures and a response has been made to it. As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: Introduction The issues raised in this e-petition relate to land use in England and Wales. They touch on the law relating to the ownership of property and the private law of nuisance as well as the planning system, statutory nuisance and the regulation of public events. The underlying complaint is that new residents object to established activities within their new neighbourhood. Individuals are in general free to live in any part of England and Wales. They may buy, rent or be permitted to use a residence. On taking up residence they generally have the same rights as the existing inhabitants. Removing the rights of incomers to protect themselves against nuisances would discriminate against them and probably intensify the enquiries made by prospective residents, making transactions more complicated and expensive, as well as increasing the risk of post-transaction litigation about non-disclosure or limited disclosure. The Government has no plans to change the law in this respect. The law of nuisance The private law of nuisance is a long-standing common law tort, or civil wrong, which affects a person’s private rights in relation to land. The law recognises that, in general, every person is entitled to the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the land or premises owned or occupied by them. It is open to anyone with an interest in land to bring a civil claim where there has been an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land as a result of the unreasonable use of neighbouring land by another person (the defendant). Remedies available could include an injunction to moderate or cease the unreasonable use of the land and/or damages for the interference suffered. The standard to be applied by the courts in determining whether the claimant is entitled to a remedy is an objective one based on what is reasonable to the average person. It is also necessary to take account of the circumstances and nature of the locality in which the claimant is living. While any benefit to the wider community arising from the defendant’s use of their land is not a defence against a claim, it may be a factor considered by the court when assessing if the use is reasonable. The fact that the defendant may have been using the land in that way before the claimant came to the vicinity is also not a defence, although the extent to which the claimant was aware of the activity when acquiring their interest in the land may be a factor that the court will consider as part of the overall picture. Applying these general principles, the court has to reach a decision in the light of all the circumstances of the individual case. Achieving a just outcome in such civil disputes is a matter best left to the courts, and the Government has no plans to change the law in this area. There is also statutory nuisance legislation which draws on common law nuisance. It would apply to noise from premises that unreasonably and substantially interferes with a person’s enjoyment of their property or damages their health. It also places a duty on local authorities to take action, rather than individuals relying on seeking redress through the courts. Before using this legislation, the local authority would assess whether a statutory nuisance exists based on the circumstances of the case, taking into account a range of factors including how the character of the locality (including existing noise sources) affects the situation. Individuals may also bring private actions under this legislation There are safeguards for motor sport venues in relation to complaints from nearby residents. When assessing statutory nuisance and deciding on potential enforcement action and whether mitigation measures are required, the venues – or any businesses - have a defence of best practicable means if they can demonstrate that they have done all they reasonably and practicably can to minimise the noise impact. Planning The planning system has an important role to play in helping to prevent nuisances occurring in the first place. National planning policy for England as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework expects local planning policies and decisions to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on heath and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions. However, it should be borne in mind that the grant of planning permission does not license a nuisance and in some cases businesses may need to do more than just comply with their planning conditions to avoid causing a nuisance. Where appropriate, the courts will look at planning decisions and compliance with any planning decisions when assessing whether a nuisance exists. Elements of an ‘agent of change” or “right of first occupant” principle already exist within national planning policy and guidance. The National Planning Policy Framework, for example, states that existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established. In particular, the planning guidance supporting the Framework directly addresses the issue of noise sensitive developments, like new residential developments, where there is an existing noise source and includes advice on noise mitigation measures. In a recent update of the guidance, the Department for Communities and Local Government underlined planning’s contribution to avoiding future complaints including through looking to developers building new homes near venues giving rise to noise to include sound-proofing in the homes. Motor sports venues The Government fully recognises the huge popularity of motor sport in this country both on 2 and 4 wheels. Motor sport is important in terms sporting participation, volunteering, engineering, advancements in technology, job creation and wider economic benefits. In summary, our policies and legislation, along with existing planning guidance, allow people to enjoy motor sport while managing the noise environment and without placing an unnecessary burden on businesses that operate as motor sport venues. The Government considers that it is striking the right balance between those who welcome motor sport and those who have concerns about it. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold. View the response to the e-petition Thanks, HM Government e-petitions HM Government e-petitions" In a more digestible form (it seems that government doesn't do paragraphs, in case you might actually want to read what they have written) it would read: "The e-petition 'introduce mandatory noise complaint waiver for anyone who buys or rents a property close to motorsport venue' signed by you recently reached 37,927 signatures and a response has been made to it. As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: Introduction The issues raised in this e-petition relate to land use in England and Wales. They touch on the law relating to the ownership of property and the private law of nuisance as well as the planning system, statutory nuisance and the regulation of public events. The underlying complaint is that new residents object to established activities within their new neighbourhood. Individuals are in general free to live in any part of England and Wales. They may buy, rent or be permitted to use a residence. On taking up residence they generally have the same rights as the existing inhabitants. Removing the rights of incomers to protect themselves against nuisances would discriminate against them and probably intensify the enquiries made by prospective residents, making transactions more complicated and expensive, as well as increasing the risk of post-transaction litigation about non-disclosure or limited disclosure. The Government has no plans to change the law in this respect. The law of nuisance The private law of nuisance is a long-standing common law tort, or civil wrong, which affects a person’s private rights in relation to land. The law recognises that, in general, every person is entitled to the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the land or premises owned or occupied by them. It is open to anyone with an interest in land to bring a civil claim where there has been an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land as a result of the unreasonable use of neighbouring land by another person (the defendant). Remedies available could include an injunction to moderate or cease the unreasonable use of the land and/or damages for the interference suffered. The standard to be applied by the courts in determining whether the claimant is entitled to a remedy is an objective one based on what is reasonable to the average person. It is also necessary to take account of the circumstances and nature of the locality in which the claimant is living. While any benefit to the wider community arising from the defendant’s use of their land is not a defence against a claim, it may be a factor considered by the court when assessing if the use is reasonable. The fact that the defendant may have been using the land in that way before the claimant came to the vicinity is also not a defence, although the extent to which the claimant was aware of the activity when acquiring their interest in the land may be a factor that the court will consider as part of the overall picture. Applying these general principles, the court has to reach a decision in the light of all the circumstances of the individual case. Achieving a just outcome in such civil disputes is a matter best left to the courts, and the Government has no plans to change the law in this area. There is also statutory nuisance legislation which draws on common law nuisance. It would apply to noise from premises that unreasonably and substantially interferes with a person’s enjoyment of their property or damages their health. It also places a duty on local authorities to take action, rather than individuals relying on seeking redress through the courts. Before using this legislation, the local authority would assess whether a statutory nuisance exists based on the circumstances of the case, taking into account a range of factors including how the character of the locality (including existing noise sources) affects the situation. Individuals may also bring private actions under this legislation There are safeguards for motor sport venues in relation to complaints from nearby residents. When assessing statutory nuisance and deciding on potential enforcement action and whether mitigation measures are required, the venues – or any businesses - have a defence of best practicable means if they can demonstrate that they have done all they reasonably and practicably can to minimise the noise impact. Planning The planning system has an important role to play in helping to prevent nuisances occurring in the first place. National planning policy for England as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework expects local planning policies and decisions to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on heath and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions. However, it should be borne in mind that the grant of planning permission does not license a nuisance and in some cases businesses may need to do more than just comply with their planning conditions to avoid causing a nuisance. Where appropriate, the courts will look at planning decisions and compliance with any planning decisions when assessing whether a nuisance exists. Elements of an ‘agent of change” or “right of first occupant” principle already exist within national planning policy and guidance. The National Planning Policy Framework, for example, states that existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established. In particular, the planning guidance supporting the Framework directly addresses the issue of noise sensitive developments, like new residential developments, where there is an existing noise source and includes advice on noise mitigation measures. In a recent update of the guidance, the Department for Communities and Local Government underlined planning’s contribution to avoiding future complaints including through looking to developers building new homes near venues giving rise to noise to include sound-proofing in the homes. Motor sports venues The Government fully recognises the huge popularity of motor sport in this country both on 2 and 4 wheels. Motor sport is important in terms sporting participation, volunteering, engineering, advancements in technology, job creation and wider economic benefits. In summary, our policies and legislation, along with existing planning guidance, allow people to enjoy motor sport while managing the noise environment and without placing an unnecessary burden on businesses that operate as motor sport venues. The Government considers that it is striking the right balance between those who welcome motor sport and those who have concerns about it. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold. View the response to the e-petition Thanks, HM Government e-petitions HM Government e-petitions If you don't want to read all that, the synopsis is this: There is already a nuisance law and it works well. Things of this nature are considered in planning applications. The Government says it likes motorsport. Nothing is set to change. The courts will decide on a case by case basis. All perfectly reasonable and I probably shouldn't have signed the petition - although I have learned something.
Same here, an entirely predictable fob off... Castle Combe and Croft were both badly let down by the current system (Mallory was different, they were taking the piss).
As has already been pointed out, the e-petition is not a finely crafted legally-binding document, but a method of expressing a desire for change to those that are in a position to effect said change. If there are enough signatures, the desired change is at least debated, thus increasing awareness of what the electorate wants. Better than a poke in the eye, IMHO.
Sure. It's really easy for anybody to say "I want change" without being specific as to what change they want, how exactly it could be effected, or what the consequences might be. Vague, muddled, badly thought out proposals like this one are unlikely to achieve anything, no matter how many people sign a petition. Now, a petition where the proposer has done their homework and thought through their proposal stands a much better chance of influencing events.
